Many regular conservatives in the straight Patriot community support gay marriage as long as it is deemed legal by state and not federal government. The second breath away from President Bush for 8 years, Dick Cheney feels the same way. The Lunatic in the Whitehouse has made it an issue in order to exploit the Gay Community for votes as he does every “special interest” group.

By keeping America splintered into fragments, he has us fight each other rather than the real “Public Enemy #1” – Barack Hussein Obama and his Communist Legion in the Whitehouse and Congress.

Your website is to be commended and your message is true. God Bless you.

Throbert, that’s true. But in many cases, not only is the hyperbole not literally true, it is outright false. In any case, resorting to hyperbole usually means the person doesn’t have an argument for the actual issue, and needs to make stuff up in order to try to win the argument. It’s bad enough when anyone does it, but more disappointing when someone who is otherwise intelligent does it.

Dating back to the 1920s he was involved with various gay organizations up through the 90s. Jennings was specific in the quote about exactly WHAT he admired in the man, and you want to go through a man who lived almost a century and find one thing and hold Jennings accountable to everything another man did in his whole life

Ooooh! Lemme see if I can play:

So what if Roman Polanski got a 13 y/o chick drunk and sodomized her. He’s made a lot of great films (???). And what could be greater than sticking it to “the man”, fleeing to Europe and becoming a “man of the world”? Besides, the bitch wanted it by showing up at Nicholson’s house unescorted, right?

Oh yeah. John Wayne Gacy was active in his community. He threw block parties and loved to entertain children. He did work for the local democrat office, so he was politically active. He was made “outstanding vice-president” of the local Jaycees. I’m sure Waterloo, Illinois died a little inside in 1994.

Harry Hay has a very long history with the gay movement. Dating back to the 1920s he was involved with various gay organizations up through the 90s. Jennings was specific in the quote about exactly WHAT he admired in the man, and you want to go through a man who lived almost a century and find one thing and hold Jennings accountable to everything another man did in his whole life when you evidently can’t just take a very direct quote in which he explained what he admired.

SWEET JESUS, TIM! The man EXPLOITED CHILDREN sexually for his own selfish pleasure and promoted that others do the same. To any rational, intelligent person, that zeros out any “good” he might have done. Only some sick, deranged perv would flail about making sorry ass excuses like you are.

I wouldn’t give a crap if the man was Pope for 50 years or whatever. If he’s buggering children, he ranks several levels lower than dog shit. Those making excuses aren’t any better. I wouldn’t have said that I admired him and neither would anybody who thinks with anything more than their dick (and even some of them wouldn’t).

Ah, telling me to shut the fuck up, again, classy.

You don’t deserve “classy”. You can take that along with your inflated ego and narrow world view and cram it.

I don’t ask for praise, merely adult, reasonable, logical engagement.

No you don’t. As I said you piss & moan because we won’t agree with you that screwing children is wonderful and other “great things” you do with your life excuses it.

If you can’t merely disagree with someone, but feel the need to insult and be a condescending jerk, don’t be surprised when you get intellectually annihilated.

Filth deserve nothing more. I take comfort in the fact that I sure as hell won’t be “intellectually annihilated” by the likes of your sorry child buggering ass.

May the messiah and his peace of Nobel have mercy on your rotting carcass.

And the main trouble with over-the-top phrasings is not that they’re “unfair” to our opponents, but rather that it gives them a much too easy occasion to score points by refuting the hyperbole as not literally true, while dodging the underlying argument.

(deep bow of respect)

You are the one who can’t even produce one shred of evidence of a crime

Actually, there are several pieces of evidence — primarily the fact that Jennings himself repeatedly stated that “Brewster” was 15 and having public sex with older men, and that Jennings refused to report it or intervene. That violates both Massachusetts age of consent laws and other statutes requiring teachers and others in positions of authority to report sexual exploitation of those under the age of consent by adults.

Meanwhile, Tim presents as “evidence” what supposedly is a driver’s license without any identifiable marks, name, signature, photo, or number, and which remarkably resembles a fake ID blank, inexplicably produced by an organization that endorses, supports, and defends forging documents in support of liberals and Obama Party members like Jennings.

The final hilarity is when Tim, who has insisted that “Brewster” was not raped or molested, tries to argue that “Brewster” needs privacy protection equivalent to those who have been raped or molested.

The entertaining thing is to watch Tim complain that others are not “adults” — while demonstrating himself a narcissistic child’s worldview, in which everyone else is wrong and in which any rule that he doesn’t like should not apply.

Can we agree on that much? Is that enough for you to have damning evidence and he should lose his job? You chose not to address this.

No, we cannot Tim. The reason I told you to go back to Zomblog’s post is that there is more in there than just Jennings’ participation in the 1994 book:

According to numerous sources (including for example the Queer Resources Directory and Gay Today; any number of additional links describing the incident can be found on this search results page), Harry Hay got into a very public spat with major mainstream gay organizations over their planned decision to ban NAMBLA from marching in the “Stonewall 25″ pride march in New York on June 26, 1994. Hay, who was slated to be honored as one of the celebrities in the march, instead insisted that NAMBLA be included in the celebration. When Hay was snubbed and NAMBLA was banned despite his objections, Hay broke away from the organizers and formed his own group called Spirit of Stonewall, which then proceeded to march in the parade with NAMBLA anyway — to the great chagrin of the march’s organizers and the larger gay community. This back-and-forth fight between Hay/NAMBLA and the mainstream of gay activists lasted for months and was a major topic of discussion in the gay community, especially among gay political activists living in New York. (Hay also wrote about this incident extensively in his own autobiography, which we will look at later in this memo.)

So: What does any of this have to do with Kevin Jennings? Well, according to his own autobiography, Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son, Kevin Jennings was himself living in New York at the time, and was deeply involved in gay activism and politics. (The passage in question occurs on pages 211, 212, and 213 of the book. Click on the following links to see scans of those pages taken directly from Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son in which Jennings discusses at length his presence and activities in New York in 1994: page 211, page 212, page 213.) Considering that the Hay/NAMBLA spat was a hot topic in Jennings’ professional and personal circles, it seems extremely likely that he at least became aware of it at the time. Which means that a full three years before he gave his speech praising Harry Hay, Jennings again knew of Hay’s defense of NAMBLA.

As should have been clear I even let you have that one for the sake of argumentation, even though I found the excuse to be unconvincing, yet STILL there is enough reason to believe that Jennings knew about Hays’ connections to NAMBLA in 1997 when he publically praised the man. From a 2007 online bio of Jennings, found at a friendly source:

As more and more educators and students began contacting him for help, Kevin saw a need that wasn’t being met and in 1990 founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, a local volunteer group in the Boston area bringing together LGBT and straight teachers, parents, students and community members who wanted to end anti-LGBT bias in the state’s K-12 schools. In 1992 Kevin was appointed to co-chair the Education Committee of the Governor’s Commission on Gay & Lesbian Youth by Massachusetts Governor William Weld. He was the principal author of its report Making Schools Safe for Gay & Lesbian Youth, whose recommendations were adopted as policy by the Massachusetts State Board of Education. The Commission led the fight that made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against public school students and to establish a statewide program to insure educational equity on issues of sexual orientation in 1993.

Kevin left Boston to come to New York that same year as a Joseph Kingenstein Fellow at Columbia University, from which he received his M.A. in 1994. Upon graduating from Columbia, Kevin left teaching to set about building the all-volunteer GLSEN organization into a national force. Under Kevin’s leadership, GLSEN has made safe schools into a national issue, increased the number of students protected from harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity by over 600%, and grown the number of GSA’s from under 50 in 1995 to over 3,000 today. GLSEN programs like GSA’s, No Name-Calling Week, and Day of Silence are now commonplace in America’s schools. Kevin was named to Newsweek magazine’s “Century Club” as one of “100 people to watch in the new century” and is also the recipient of the Human and Civil Rights Award of the National Education Association. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-jennings

Are you seriously trying to say that given his impressive background and as well-connected as Jennings was prior to his 1997 speech that not once, never at any time, he ever heard anything about Hays’ connections to NAMBLA? Even during his time in New York starting in 1994? Never saw a single news story about the IGLA’s kicking NAMBLA out in 1994, which Hays was widely reported in criticizing, never heard about any of this from colleagues, friends, lovers or just about anybody in the NYC gay community at that time??? I’m not buying it, Tim. Either the man is a very incomeptent scholar, which whether you agree with his views or not his accomplishments seem to belie that, or he was quietly participating in the cover-up of Hays’ extremely unsavory side. Heck, Zombie does a better job than I in framing this, so please do take a crack in responding to it:

If someone told you they really admired Adolf Hitler, you would naturally assume that they had Nazi sympathies. But if that same person later told you, “No, you misunderstand, I don’t admire Hitler because he was a Nazi: I admire him because of his love for dogs! Boy, that guy sure did love his dogs,” you probably would still harbor suspicions that something was amiss.

I use this rather hackneyed comparison not because I think Harry Hay was like Hitler, but rather because because in our modern hierarchy of moral turpitude the only thing that equals supporting the Nazi Party is promoting pedophilia. And even if you truly did admire Hitler solely for his love of dogs, and not for his other actions, you’d be an absolute fool to walk around praising him to strangers. Because they’d inevitably assume the worst. In a similar vein, if you publicly announce your admiration for someone known to vigorously promote pedophilia — well, what do you expect the public to think? You can’t separate the two halves of Harry Hay and say you were inspired by his good side and make no mention of his bad side. Some beliefs and actions are so beyond the pale that they overwhelm and contaminate anything else the person might have done, and make him off-limits to declarations of admiration.

And this goes straight to the heart of the matter. Even if Kevin Jennings only praised Harry Hay for his earlier activism, it’s still a major public relations blunder. The American public no more wants their Safe Schools Czar to praise a known pedophilia supporter than they want their military commanders to express admiration for Osama bin Laden (”No, really, I meant I was just inspired by the stylish way he trims his beard!”).

Zombie’s conclusions are reasonable while your excusing Jennings on this I do not find to be convincing.

I like Ayn Rand’s writing. There is a violent rape described in one of her books. If I read “Atlas Shrugged” should I (any therefore, any Rand admirers) be held to never praise her because she advocates raping women??? NO!

A flawed comparison since Rand was writing about fictional characters while Jennings was writing about, and later praising, a real person.

If you can prove me wrong on this point, please do so as I would be delighted to rescind my call for his resignation should the circumstances warrant.

And to all, please note I am working on a followup to this piece, but want to first read a printout of Zomblog’s post. After a cursory online reading, I have reached a slightly different conclusion than the one John reaches above. And want to confirm that before I post on the issue again.

Way to prove my point.

Always sneaky, underhanded and two-faced. It’s a fair question and I think if he wants to keep on working with and/or for children and their safety, he better damn well answer it.

Again, way to elevate the discussion with your insults. Sorry if reading hurts your head, but in adult land we sometimes need more than emoticons and insults to have discussions.

He’s answered the questions, provided this kid’s ID, apologized and said he would have handled the situation differently. Harry Hay has a very long history with the gay movement. Dating back to the 1920s he was involved with various gay organizations up through the 90s. Jennings was specific in the quote about exactly WHAT he admired in the man, and you want to go through a man who lived almost a century and find one thing and hold Jennings accountable to everything another man did in his whole life when you evidently can’t just take a very direct quote in which he explained what he admired.

Further, if you only want to talk to John, get his e-mail and STFU.

Ah, telling me to shut the fuck up, again, classy.

The reason you don’t come to this site anymore (Whiskey Tango Foxtrot????) is because while you piss & moan, we don’t coddle you and tell you how brilliant you are.

As your post readily shows, you have an inability to have a reasoned discussion. Your inflated ego and narrow minded world view assure anyone who doesn’t agree with you is not only wrong, but warrants insults and put downs. I don’t ask for praise, merely adult, reasonable, logical engagement. If you can’t merely disagree with someone, but feel the need to insult and be a condescending jerk, don’t be surprised when you get intellectually annihilated.

THIS IS WHY I DON’T COME TO THIS SITE ANYMORE, THERE ARE NOT REASONABLE ADULTS HERE TO HAVE ANY SORT OF CONVERSATION WITH.

How about this:

Since you don’t want to be called a pedo, how about fcking idiot? Through your long bloviations wasting space on the thread, all you keep repeating is that we should take his and MediaMorons’ word for it.

If it had been me, I would never claim that I admired Harry Hay. But then again my mama brought me up better than that. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask what the hell he was talking about when he said it. Particularly since liberals rarely say exactly what they mean and always pretend to be something they’re not. Always sneaky, underhanded and two-faced. It’s a fair question and I think if he wants to keep on working with and/or for children and their safety, he better damn well answer it.

Further, if you only want to talk to John, get his e-mail and STFU.

No. The reason you don’t come to this site anymore (Whiskey Tango Foxtrot????) is because while you piss & moan, we don’t coddle you and tell you how brilliant you are. If you want to wallow in victimhood, there’s plenty of gay liberal panty waist sites out there.

Thanks for your response. It’s so refreshing to not have a shouting match.

I don’t really accept your argument to just go read the post again. Again, the crux of the argument is that he HAD to have known about Hay’s NAMBLA involvement because the anthology he was involved in compiling pulled a chapter from another Hay’s book that made a mention of Hay’s NAMBLA involvement. Can we agree on that much? Is that enough for you to have damning evidence and he should lose his job? You chose not to address this.

Here’s why I disagree: When many books that are compilations are published, there is conversation among writers and editors and make it known they are seeking contributions or material. Possibly the editor, writer, or someone involved with the Hay’s book saw they could make additional royalties and money by having a chapter about Hay’s activism included. They probably submitted this CHAPTER which they saw relevant and probably submitted or suggested it and it got in the book. Jennings was VERY CLEAR in his explanation of WHY he was praising Hay’s at the time. Read the quote, he points out his perseverance in getting people to join his cause at the initial points of gay activism.

Your assumption is that because he had this one chapter in an anthology, he should have read everything else about the man and should know his entire life history and never put it in or praised him. It’s a very shaky, unrealistic account to hold anyone to. I like Ayn Rand’s writing. There is a violent rape described in one of her books. If I read “Atlas Shrugged” should I (any therefore, any Rand admirers) be held to never praise her because she advocates raping women??? NO! All I can see in this case is a very thinly extrapolated case of association that you have no evidence of. Just a “maybe” he “might” have known about it, and if maybe on the off chance he did … C’mon. You want a man’s job for that? Considering all the other work he’s done?

Maybe you can convince me. Show me what more they have about him knowing about Hay’s. Show me what PROOF you have. Don’t just refer me back to the link. I’ve read it. I’ve even summarized MY view of the evidence and refuted it. Show me where I’m wrong. Don’t just tell me I’m wrong and to read it over. We’re adults here. Address my points, or reinforce your case stating why this apparent association of he should have known is stronger or provide more evidence. But don’t just tell me I’m wrong and to read it again. Let’s have a dialogue here.